Navigate:

Full bench: Eyeing each justice

Each Supreme Court justice will bring a unique viewpoint to the case of health reform. | AP Photo

Wild card: Roberts has experienced a couple of unexpected and scary episodes for a man in otherwise good health. Once in 1993 and again in 2007, he suffered seizures, apparently out of the blue. The second time, he collapsed on a boat dock near his Maine vacation home and had to be rushed to a hospital. For Roberts, the incidents might underscore how even Americans who don’t think they’ll use health care often end up doing so.

Text Size

-

+

reset

As the court’s quintessential swing vote, Kennedy may represent the Obama administration’s best hope for a Republican-appointed justice who could join the court’s four liberals to uphold the law. But Kennedy also has been a strong voice for state autonomy — so he could accept state officials’ claims that the federal law usurps their authority.

Wild card: Kennedy wrote a 1995 opinion saying Congress can enact laws that attempt to address national economic problems. The government argues that the new health law tries to do just that.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ginsburg, 79, is the court’s liberal stalwart, so it’s virtually unthinkable that she’d try to undo Obama’s signature legislative achievement. As the court’s oldest judge, she may also be reluctant to embrace arguments that would involve the justices putting off a decision on the law until 2015 or later.

Wild card: Ginsburg has had more than her share of interaction with the health care system in recent years, including a diagnosis of colon cancer in 1999 and pancreatic cancer in 2009. She kept working even through chemotherapy and never missed an argument but in September 2009, she was rushed from the court to a hospital after feeling faint. After the incident, it emerged that she was regularly visiting the court medical office for intravenous infusions to treat anemia.

Samuel Alito

A usually reliable conservative vote, Alito is widely expected to agree with opponents that the law is unconstitutional. But he’s been on the court only six years and doesn’t have a detailed record on the Commerce Clause. That makes his position harder to predict.

Wild card: Alito very often agrees with the federal government’s arguments, something that makes backers of the law think they might pick up his vote. In 2006 and 2011, he voted to uphold federal supremacy in cases involving federal employee health insurance and generic drug labels.

Elena Kagan

Kagan was the Obama administration’s solicitor general while Congress debated and voted on the health care bill, which has led conservatives to call on her to recuse herself. In January, the court rejected, without explanation, a conservative group’s motion seeking time to argue for Kagan’s recusal. Kagan and other administration officials have said she walled herself off from discussions about defending the law in court. However, the measure’s opponents, including Republican lawmakers, have pressed the administration for records that could support speculation that she participated in such deliberations.

Wild card: Kagan may put Solicitor General Donald Verrilli through the paces with some tough questions, if only to dispel perceptions that her vote is a lock.

Readers' Comments (7)

When Obama nominated Sotomayor and Kagan, remember all the flattering stories in the liberal media about how "independent" Sotomayor and Kagan really were--that they weren't 100% predictable doctrinaire liberals?

That was a lie, of course--and one more reason not to trust anything the liberal media says.

If Obama wins re-election, he'll put two more ultra-liberals on the Supreme Court, and turn it into the most liberal Supreme Court since the days of Earl Warren. Americans' protection from left-wing excesses will be gone for decades.

The courts' final decision could be unconstitutional in and of itself. Kagans' failure to remove herself from ruling only amplifies the desperation of The Obama Regime to cram this unpopular law down the throats of honest,hardworking people.People who are willing and able to pay for their own care,are not lining up to pay more for less of it.The idea that health care is a right,keeps the Lefts' fires burning,but they are running out of other peoples' money to spend.Nothing is free,and when you take from one,without their consent,to give to another,that's stealing.Socialism will not be swallowed by true Americans.

- I'm sorry, but which part of socialism won't 'true Americans' swallow? The Socialism of our current progressive tax structure which has been around for decades, or socialism of Medicare which redistributes payments from rich wage earners to all senior citizens regardless of their wealth? Or the socialism of Social Security which works similar to Medicare? How about that socialism that puts veterians through college on the GI BIll? Or the medical benefits we all pay for to take care of our heroes?

All of the above references are Socialism in it's truest form. However, the ACA (Obamacare as you call it) is actually the furthest thing from socialism, as it uses the private sector to handle the health care coverage, unlike the above referenced programs which are gov't administered. You also have a right to NOT get health insurance - nobody will make you - you just have to pay a fine if you choose not to get it. You are also welcome to go to ANY doctor you want - including a doctor who won't accept any insurance, so long as you pay for it yourself.

By the way - another form of socialism, which the non-socialist ACA helps to get rid of is the massive cost on ALL Americans of the hosptial emergency room being used as a care center for the uninsured. You recognize that the cost of these unpaid for emergency room visits is covered by you, and me, and everyone else in the cost of our health care, right? And there is only one other solution - sending the unwell poor to the street to die. You can't JUST insure them, or the cost would be astronomical - they need to buy into a plan just like everyone else so that the income and expense can be balanced - this is sound business, and how all insurance works. Nothing socialistic about it.

jdanbuck: The courts' final decision could be unconstitutional in and of itself. Kagans' failure to remove herself from ruling only amplifies the desperation of The Obama Regime

You have your concerns about the impartiality of a justice, the left has theirs in Justice Thomas. He has recieved MASSIVE speaking fees from anti-ACA groups, and his wife runs one... if that's not apparent bias I don't know what is. So let's assume that our biased judge cancels out my biased judge and move on - now we're looking at a 4-3 decision in either direction most likely.

lrn2think: "However, the ACA (Obamacare as you call it) is actually the furthest thing from socialism, as it uses the private sector to handle the health care coverage, unlike the above referenced programs which are gov't administered. You also have a right to NOT get health insurance - nobody will make you - you just have to pay a fine if you choose not to get it."

How does using the private sector inoculate Obamacare from being socialist? Is there some sort of free market going on between the individual, the insurance company and the feds, when prices are fixed, coverage is fixed, and the feds decide what services you can have, based on health condition and age? What's free market about being required to buy insurance, and being punished if you don't? Isn't this tantamount to having to pay for a right--that is, to not have insurance--when rights by definition are inherent to being human, and therefore free?

Of course, all the provisions of Obamacare are logical and necessary, if you first accept the idea that healthcare is a right, and therefore, the government has an obligation to protect that right. I reject that notion. No one lives forever, and if you have the money to extend your life a little longer, whether with insurance or without it, and choose to spend that money for that purpose, fine, because healthcare is just like any other product.

If you don't have the money, and charitable organizations don't exist or can't afford your healthcare, then nature takes its course, just as it has since the inception of the human race--in fact, the inception of all living creatures.

But you don't have the right to confiscate (that means 'against their will') the wealth of others for any purpose, even to extend your life a little longer. And certainly, not to the degree that you and others like yourself bankrupt the nation.

Justice Kagan was asked, during nomination proceedings how she had spent Christmas dinner and she replied, as a good Jew probably ate at a chinese restrauant. The fact that supposely she "walled" herself off from any discussions of defending the health care bill smacks of pre -knowledge of her reward for supporting Professor/President/Ruler(?) Obama.

You must be happy if you believe this is already a socialist country.No,not yet.But if you can use your crystal ball for something besides Utopian pipe dreams,you'll see where this health care takeover leads.Obamacare will put insurance companies out of business because they're,raising rates to pay for all the freebies being gobbled up by people who are being subsidized by government.Where will we turn for coverage? To the government because that's all that's left..What do you call that? I'm to simple minded for liberal thought twisting .